TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal reclassifies zinc dross imports, rules in favor of appellant</h1> <h3>Seema Intermet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (I), Nhava Sheva</h3> Seema Intermet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (I), Nhava Sheva - TMI Issues:Classification of imported goods under ITC (HS) 79020010 or 79020090; Confiscation and penalty under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The appeal involved the classification of imported goods by the appellant, specifically zinc dross shelf, under ITC (HS) 79020010 or 79020090, and the subsequent confiscation and penalty under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The lower authorities seized the goods as they found the slabs to weigh more than 500 kgs., which did not conform to ISRI specifications. The Deputy Chief Chemist reported the zinc content of the sample as 89.9%. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under 79020090, leading to confiscation and penalties. The appellant argued that their goods fell under 79020010, citing ISRI specifications and previous tribunal judgments allowing variations. The departmental representative supported the lower authority's decision based on the weight discrepancy.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the lower authority erred in classifying the goods under 79020090. The Tribunal noted that the ISRI definition of zinc dross shelf allowed for pouring in moulds weighing 75 kgs each, indicating that the imported goods were ingots poured in moulds, not slabs. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving similar issues where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant due to the zinc content exceeding 90%. The Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under 79020010, finding no misdeclaration or violation warranting confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, allowing the appeal and overturning the impugned order. The judgment was pronounced on 10.3.2017 by the Tribunal, comprising Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. C.J. Mathew, Members.
TaxTMI 